Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

This seems to be a fairly straightforward matter of grammar. This is a general conditional clause with ἐὰν, which normally requires a subjunctive verb. περιπατῶμεν is parallel to εἴπωμεν, which is subjunctive, as it should be. περιπατοῦμεν seems just plain wrong; my NT (Nestle-Aland 25th ed.) doesn't even record it as a variant. I can't make sense out of it.

περιπατῶμεν isn't likely to be a hortatory subjunctive--"If we say that we have communion, let us also/indeed walk in darkness"?!!

In 1:7, there is another ἐὰν clause with περιπατῶμεν that is parallel with 1:6. Does your text read περιπατοῦμεν there, too? If not, that should tell you that περιπατοῦμεν is an error in 1:6.

περιπατοῦμεν could be a scribal error that resulted from seeing ποιοῦμεν four words later.

In what way does the distinction break down? ἐὰν + indicative in a particular condition, or εἰ + subjunctive in general condition? Even if either of those possibilities occurs in some koine texts, this is a classic general condition that could have been written by Demosthenes: ἐὰν + subjunctive in the protasis, present indicative in the apodosis. εἴπωμεν demonstrates this--conclusively, I would say--as does περιπατῶμεν in the next verse (at least in the text I looked at). I think it's inescapable that περιπατοῦμεν, which doesn't seem to have much support either in the mss. or in published editions, is wrong.

Why would we have εἴπωμεν along with περιπατοῦμεν in this verse and περιπατῶμεν in the next verse? And what's the difference in meaning between περιπατοῦμεν and περιπατῶμεν in this context, which was the original question?

Again, it's true that there is some flexibility in the choice between εἰ and ἐὰν and between indicative and subjunctive, but in this situation everything points to περιπατῶμεν being the correct reading, and the conditional clause being a classic general condition.

What the grammarians appear to be saying is the Koine began to ignore the difference between ἐὰν and εἰ in conditional sentences. The distinction became fuzzy and usage began to demonstrate substitution of ἐὰν for εἰ. This is a pattern observable in cultures where there is a trade language like Swahili or English. The second language users break down distinctions and their usage becomes commonplace. I seen this in my life time on the west coast. Street language from LA in the late 1960's and 70s has become part of the language.

This is how I see it: here you could replace the first ἐὰν by εἰ, but the moods still have a clearly defined function. Something like: "and if we know that he hears us, whatever we should ask him/whatever we were to ask him, then..."

ἐὰν οἴδαμεν -- this isn't a general condition. ἐὰν here instead of εἰ, but the condition calls for indicative. It's equivalent to "If we know (and we do know). . . then we know . . . "

ὃ ἐὰν αἰτώμεθα -- this is a an indefinite relative clause that's subordinate to ἀκούει, similar to a general condition, equivalent to ὅ τι ἄν αἰτώμεθα: "whatever we ask for." It isn't parallel to ἐὰν οἴδαμεν, unlike εἴπωμεν and περιπατῶμεν in 1:6. See LSJ ἐάν:

Anyway, there really isn't any substance left to discuss. It is safe to assume that Pickerings F35 text is Byzantine. A scribe from that era certainly wouldn't lose his job for swapping two letters with result that an indicative verb followed after ἐὰν + subjunctive in a compound construction. I hear English barbarisms on a daily basis spoken by people who were born in the USA which would make this error look trivial. If my friend Betty (from Columbia) who teaches ESL in public schools came down on one her students for making an error like that she would be fired post haste for cultural intolerance.

yet another postscript:

I used this thread as an excuse to review conditional syntax. I read about 40 pages in Guy Cooper and the relevant sections in the NT reference grammars. Cooper's take on the moods (indic, subj, optative) in regard to conditional syntax is a lot less dogmatic than what you will find in H. W. Smyth and the other older grammars. He doesn't think in terms of rules, rather patterns that can be observed, but patterns which can also be violated. In all his discussion of conditional syntax there was only one construction which he didn't find any exceptions to and it had to do with ἂν + optative so it doesn't pertain to this thread.

Sorry, I was puzzled by your citation of 5:15, because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with 1:6. I wasn't sure what point you were making in citing 5:15, and so I tried to explain why it was different.

Personally, I find Krueger/Cooper difficult to use, and Smyth is OK for Attic prose.

He doesn't think in terms of rules, rather patterns that can be observed, but patterns which can also be violated.

Of course. The "rules" are nothing more than patterns that have been compiled and formulated by grammarians (for the most part 19th century German scholars who knew Greek much better than any of us ever will), and there are always exceptions. In the case of conditional sentences, the exceptions can generally be explained based on an understanding of the differences among the moods (or better yet, once you've assimilated the semantic weight of each of the moods by a certain amount of reading, the exceptions shouldn't give you pause when reading). But I think the basic "rules" are useful as a frame of reference. You have to start somewhere.

I read more of AT Robertson to see how he would sound in light of Guy Cooper. Both of them look at numerous exceptions and anomalies. The one that pertains to our current textual variant is a compound conditional clause with two different types (classes) of conditions. Cooper[1] talks about compounds with an Ideal condition mixed with an unreal condition. ATR (p1022) cites John 13:17 εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά. Cooper specifically addresses the question of two conditionals joined under a single particle where the verb mood is appropriate for one and not the other. Both Cooper and ATR state that ἐὰν is found with the indicative. Cooper[2] goes on to suggest that editors of classical texts have in some cases masked the data by correcting what is read in the manuscripts to bring them into alignment with the "rules" for conditionals. This kind of smoothing out the text is what appears in the Byzantine text type of the NT according to the Westcott and Hort tradition in NT textual criticism.

This is different from John 13:17 εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά. In John 13:17, there are two different types of conditional clauses, and they are not parallel to one another; in 1:6 there is just one, with two verbs governed by a single conditional particle, ἐὰν.

"Cooper specifically addresses the question of two conditionals joined under a single particle where the verb mood is appropriate for one and not the other." Here the subjunctive mood is appropriate for both verbs, at least in accordance with the standard "rules"--and, in fact, the indicative apparently occurs only a single ms. or a few mss, and in the very next verse we find ἐὰν with subjunctive περιπατῶμεν in a sentence that is clearly parallel to 1:6.

"Both Cooper and ATR state that ἐὰν is found with the indicative." Yes, that's true, but I don't see how indicative περιπατοῦμεν would contrast semantically with the parallel subjunctive verb εἴπωμεν.

"Cooper goes on to suggest that editors of classical texts have in some cases masked the data by correcting what is read in the manuscripts to bring them into alignment with the "rules" for conditionals." Yes, that's very well known. Typically, 19th and early 20th century editors (and even later) sometimes made all sorts of changes to conform to their preconceptions. (And it's not limited to modern editors, either: many of the manuscript traditions of ancient Greek authors are the product of normative editing by ancient scholars.) But I think that approach is less prevalent today: modern editorial practice is to put the ms. reading in the text (unless it's absolutely impossible) and editorial conjectures in the apparatus, but even in good 19th century editions, the ms. reading can be found in the apparatus.

And in this case, there a several factors pointing to the conclusion that περιπατοῦμεν, apparently the reading of a small minority of mss., is an error and περιπατῶμεν is right:

1. Not much ms. authority for περιπατοῦμεν.

2. περιπατῶμεν is in conformity with the "rules" for general conditions, even recognizing that the rules are nothing more than compilations of examples and are not without exceptions.

3. Subjunctive εἴπωμεν is directly parallel to περιπατῶμεν.

4. Subjunctive ἐὰν περιπατῶμεν occurs in the next verse, in a sentence that is parallel to 1:6.

5. You suggested (and I'm not the slightest knowledgeable here) that Byzantine copyists tend to be sloppy about details like this (if I'm understanding what you wrote).

6. There is a ready explanation for the slip: the copyist's eye caught -οῦμεν in ποιοῦμεν four words later.

I don't see any arguments in favor of περιπατοῦμεν. Do you?

Last edited by Qimmik on Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Qimmik wrote:
I don't see any arguments in favor of περιπατοῦμεν. Do you?

Not really. The original reading isn't what this discussion is all about. The discussion (I thought?) was about what is possible and intelligible greek syntax.

I would also suggest that you are taking a rather strict stance on parallelism. Parallelism is very fluid. It isn't safe to assume that what appears to be strict parallelism will not vary in a particular like mood of the second verb.

By the way I miss represented Cooper on one point. He doesn't cite examples of two protasis clauses under one particle when the particle isn't appropriate for the second protasis.

The original reading isn't what this discussion is all about. The discussion (I thought?) was about what is possible and intelligible greek syntax.

This discussion started with a question about the meaning of one of two alternative versions of the text. I tried to explain that by attempting to show that one of the alternatives was likely to be a mistake, based on a number of factors, including the fact that the standard "rules" of syntax would call for the other alternative, in a situation where there doesn't seem to me to be any reason why the standard "rule" would not be applicable. I didn't think it was necessary to get into a discussion of the contingent nature of the "rules" of syntax set forth in the standard grammars in order to address the original question because what I think is the obvious correct answer seems to me to be consistent with the standard rules. As I noted, I think the "rules" are useful as a framework, even if they don't have the universality of the law of gravity.

And I was just trying to be helpful to uberdwayne, who asked the original question.

you are taking a rather strict stance on parallelism. Parallelism is very fluid. It isn't safe to assume that what appears to be strict parallelism will not vary in a particular like mood of the second verb.

Yes, you are right, parallelism isn't always strict, and that should always be borne in mind. Thucydides goes out of his way to avoid strict parallelism as a matter of style. But in the passage under consideration here there doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be any reason why strict parallelism shouldn't be applicable, and the parallelism of περιπατῶμεν with both εἴπωμεν in the same clause and περιπατῶμεν in the next verse is one of the factors that confirm or at least make it very likely that περιπατῶμεν, and not περιπατοῦμεν, is the right reading.

As you noted, Cooper "doesn't cite examples of two protasis clauses under one particle when the particle isn't appropriate for the second protasis." That's exactly why parallelism with εἴπωμεν is compelling evidence for περιπατῶμεν here.

Yes, my initial question was about intelligible meaning from both the subjunctive and the indicative form of peripatew (sorry guys, I'm on a linux machine right now and installing a greek keyboard is way too much hassle!). I was hoping to use this information to come to a conclusion on the most plausable original reading.

περιπατῶμεν isn't likely to be a hortatory subjunctive--"If we say that we have communion, let us also/indeed walk in darkness"?!!

Haha, that does sound completely ridiculous! <facepalm> I had failed to see the "kai" linking the verb in question to "eipwmen", which resulted in a form of heresy! lol.

so, from what I read, it appears that both the indicative and the subjunctive would still result in the same semantic situation. that is, both paripatoumen/wmen are linked in a conditional clause with eipwmen regardless if weather it is indicative of subjunctive. The distinction between moods for ean and ei were slowly merging during the koine period resulting in some "exceptions" to the general patterns found in the greek literature. Is this a good summary of all the above?

The subjunctive form has far greater attestation in the MSS tradition, I've collated about 15 MSS of 1 John and all of them have the subjunctive. Even Dr. Pickerings F35 apparatus shows more support among f35 variants for the subjunctive then the indicative. It seems he has chosen the indicative on the basis of grammar which I'm not sure is intirely correct (I say that lightly, know he has given his life to Greek!) Given the information here, I think I would be comfortable in rejecting the the indicative reading in favour of the subjunctive.

Do any of the mss that you've looked at or that are reported in the apparatus have anything other than περιπατῶμεν in the next verse?

Not one of them does, even in Dr. Pickering apparatus, it shows no variant here either. There is no variant in the printed editions either. I have checked GA: 01, 02, 03, 04, 025, 042, 1, 3, 69... and a few others. They all have the subjunctive in both places. No reference to the one in verse seven being an indicative, it looks like there is no variant there.

"If we claim that we have fellowship with him and (that) we walk in the darkness"

Here, "we" claim to things, 1) "we have fellowship with him" and 2) "we walk in the darkness". ἔχομεν and περιπατοῦμεν are parallel and ὅτι applies to them, both of them. I think this is nonsense, like Qimmik says, although not necessarily ungrammatical (but perhaps ὅτι would usually be repeated – ...καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατοῦμεν? Not sure, Greek is hard ). But: why would John ever want to write that?

ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ is subordinate to εἴπωμεν, why should there be a ὅτι clause in the second half, and how would that change the parallelism between the two main verbs?

2- εἴπωμεν aorist, περιπατῶμεν present

Here the difference between the tenses is purely aspectual, no temporal meaning is discernible as far as I see. εἴπωμεν is aorist, because it's about making one definite, isolated claim; with a present verb you could bring a nuance like "if we are saying" or even "if we kept saying". περιπατῶμεν is present because it's durative, it's about a continuous act, the way of living; aorist would mean "took a stroll" or something like that. Again, I don't see how the choice between present and aorist makes a difference; it's because both are subjunctives that they are parallel.

f35 is the siglum adopted by Wilbur Pickering for Von Soden's Kr grouping. It consists of about 300 manuscripts (the second biggest grouping, Kx being the biggest though not by far.) with the earliest extant being somewhere around 11th century (possibly earlier). Its called f35 because Manuscript 35 is the lowest GA number with the text that best represents the grouping. It is characterized by a very controlled scribal transmission (so much so that, aside from the gospel and acts, a number of manuscripts perfectly match the profile by book by book) and contains Von Soden's M7 profile in the Pericope Adulterae almost exclusively. More simply it is a line of transmission within the Byzantine text type. Dr. Pickering argues that it represents the autographs and has a distinct transmissional history from other K groupings. I'm not entirely certain of his Autographical claim, however, I think there is sufficient evidence to show that it is just as old as the other K types if not, older.

He has written a book called "Identity of the New Testament IV" which can be downloaded from http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering10.htm or purchased on Amazon. In it he details a general argument for Byzantine Priority and more specifically f35/Kr priority. His F35 text is also available as well on the website for download or print version via amazon. I've been working closely with Dr. Pickering to update his text to include accents and breathings and to put it in a 6 x 9 print format. We're currently transferring the apparatus so the 2nd edition should be completed in a few months. So if this sounds like a shameless promotion, I confess... It is a little!

Qimmik wrote:
I don't see any arguments in favor of περιπατοῦμεν. Do you?

Only that it is the more difficult reading.

In English, you can say:

If this be treason, and if we be traitors, let's make the most of it!

or you can say:

If this is treason, and if we are traitors, let's make the most of it!

and you can even say

If this be treason, and if we are traitors, let's make the most of it!

1. There is no real difference in meaning. I mean, there is, but the difference is so slight, that if you asked 100 fluent English speakers to tell you the difference, you would get 100 different answers. The differences are stylistic. 2. Number three, while admittedly maybe a little inconsistent, is of course not "wrong" an "error" or a "mistake." 3. This might not stop an editor from "correcting" it.

I suppose this "canon" could be invoked, but the issue is that eclectic thought tends to, generally, ignore the minuscules. This variant doesn't come up except in some of these minuscules, the earliest that I am aware of is GA 35 which is 11th century and has been claimed as a part of a late recension (hence the name "Koine Revised" or Kr by Von Soden for the group). As with most claims of "recension," it is still pending evidence.

My point, is that those who would endorse this rule (namely the eclectics) fail to see this variant because its a variant ascribed to so-called "secondary" sources. Therefore this really isn't a valid reason for supporting this view.

f35 is the siglum adopted by Wilbur Pickering for Von Soden's Kr grouping. It consists of about 300 manuscripts (the second biggest grouping, Kx being the biggest though not by far.) with the earliest extant being somewhere around 11th century (possibly earlier). Its called f35 because Manuscript 35 is the lowest GA number with the text that best represents the grouping.

Thank you. The majority text (MT) is a specialized field of study. I am somewhat confused as to the extent that Von Soden is the primary source of data for analysis. To what extent are proponents of the MT able to study actual manuscripts? The proponents of the Westcott & Hort … NA/UBS, SBLGNT, texts have cast a shadow over the reliability of Von Soden's apparatus. Trying to prove anything when you are working with hundreds of manuscripts presents a mind numbing challange. I reviewed the introduction to Hodges & Farstad again for the nth time. I also have read Robinson-Pierpont's article published in the 2005 edition of their GNT numerous times. I always come away with the sense that you have a calling to do this kind of work. It hast to be an important cause because nobody is going to make a living off of studying the text of the New Testament unless you are Bart Ehrman.

My personal study of manuscripts has been very limited. Focused on codex Bezae in Acts and Sinaiticus in the Apocalypse. There are relatively recent major monograph treatments of both.

The difficilior lectio rule applies to a reading that is more difficult but still within the realm of possibility. There is, of course, necessarily an element of editorial judgment in deciding whether a reading is possible or not.

Here περιπατοῦμεν doesn't seem, to me at least, to be within the realm of possibility. The meaning would have to be, I think, "If we say that we have communion with him and [that] we walk around in darkness . . ." This seems to me too odd to be what the author wanted to say.

Alternatively, if we think that the author really meant to say "If we say that we are in communion with him and [if] we walk around in darkness . . . " but that περιπατοῦμεν could be right, he would have had to have been so inept at writing Greek that he could write an ἐὰν condition with both a subjunctive and an indicative verb, in a way that would lead to confusion as to whether the indicative verb belongs to the condition introduced by ἐὰν or to the indirect statement introduced by ὅτι.

The proponents of the Westcott & Hort … NA/UBS, SBLGNT, texts have cast a shadow over the reliability of Von Soden's apparatus.

True indeed, and so has many from the MT side of the debate, in working with the WP text, I happened on the Pericope adulterae in tonights task. Dr. Pickering mentions Von Soden in passing here in a footnote:

Dr. Pickering wrote:For these verses I will cite the groups posited by von Soden as used in the H-F apparatus, rather than give percentages (M7 becomes f35); however, Robinson’s collations have demonstrated that Soden ‘regularized’ the data rather drastically, so the H-F apparatus may in fact be rather misleading. For all that, until Robinson’s collations are fully analyzed, and the result made public, it’s the best we can do...

also consider his opening statement in his introduction to his F35 text:

Once upon a time I was led to believe that Hermann Von Sodens's work was basically reliable... However, the Text und Textwert (tut) collations demonstrate objectively that not infrequently Soden is seriously off the mark

I think its generally accepted that Von Soden's Work is lacking in accuracy. We also see the Claremont Profile Method which often shows the groupings are not completely accurate using test chapters in Luke.

With that being said, the tut is not entirely useless. We do get a good general sense of a family type, and to date, there is nothing even remotely close to what he has in his volumes. As far as manuscripts are concerned, INTF is continually adding the minuscules to its databases, and other institutions such as CSPMT (who I've been working with ) and CNTTS have access to a number of minuscules and lectionaries as well. Not all, of course, there's always politics involved when it comes to manuscript access, but the numbers are definitely increasing. Dan Wallace has a number of MSS available but you have to go to his office to see most of them

Now, concerning the indicative and the Subjunctive, Here is how I view the difference after reading all these posts:

Subjunctive: If we say "we have fellowship with him" and [if] we are walking in darkness....
Indicative: If we say "we have fellowship with him" [even though] we are walking in darkness....

the other consideration is that the indicative with εαν was phasing in at the time of writing the manuscript which means we would 'pretend' its a subjunctive anyway. Did I get that right?

Subjunctive: If we say "we have fellowship with him" and [if] we are walking in darkness....
Indicative: If we say "we have fellowship with him" [even though] we are walking in darkness....

Did I get that right?

The question is whether περιπατῶμεν/περιπατοῦμεν is a conditional introduced by ἐὰν or an indirect statement introduced by ὅτι.

In my view, the subjunctive περιπατῶμεν would be a conditional parallel to εἴπωμεν; indicative περιπατοῦμεν would be an indirect statement parallel to ἔχομεν. In my view:

1. Subjunctive: If we say that we have fellowship with him and [if] we're walking around in darkness, then we're lying.

2. Indicative: If we say that we have fellowship with him and [that] we're walking around in darkness, then we're lying.

I think that with the indicative περιπατοῦμεν, 2 is the natural reading of the Greek.

Others think that 1 is a possible reading of the Greek with the indicative, and there's essentially no difference between the indicative and subjunctive here.

the other consideration is that the indicative with εαν was phasing in at the time of writing the manuscript which means we would 'pretend' its a subjunctive anyway.

Do you mean the ms. that has περιπατοῦμεν, or the original manuscript of the author?

Each of the next five verses begins with ἐὰν + subjunctive (including ἐὰν . . . περιπατῶμεν in the very next verse), which suggests that for the original author the construction was alive and well. Do these have an indicative verb in the F35 mss. you're looking at?

Qimmik wrote:Do you mean the ms. that has περιπατοῦμεν, or the original manuscript of the author?

the manuscript that has περιπατοῦμεν.

Another consideration too, the minuscule cursive ω and ου do have the capacity to look similar, especially if ου is squeezed together. Again, in Dr. Pickering's notes, he states "1864 has a strange shape, like it is trying to be both forms at once—it is neither a normal ω nor a normal ου"

Qimmik wrote:Each of the next five verses begins with ἐὰν + subjunctive (including ἐὰν . . . περιπατῶμεν in the very next verse), which suggests that for the original author the construction was alive and well. Do these have an indicative verb in the F35 mss. you're looking at?

No, there are absolutely no variants in any of these places, Not even in the uncials or non F35 ones I've looked at.

2. Indicative: If we say that we have fellowship with him and [that] we're walking around in darkness, then we're lying.

This to me seems really awkward. It is unlikely that the same person who says "we have fellowship with him" would also say "We are walking in darkness". It seems more natural that John is "Dichotomizing" the spoken words with the given action (consider 1 John 3:18).... "If you say "this" and your actions don't match it, then..." I think this catches the general idea. I still think the Subjunctive fits better.

A truly amazing thread, guys. Everyone could save themselves a lot of time and confusion if they only heeded Qimmik.

Immediately obvious to me (not ignorant of koine) that peripatoumen is nothing more than a scribal slip for –wmen, possibly but not necessarily under the influence of the preceding indicative. Not worth more than two seconds of anyone’s time.

A truly amazing thread, guys. Everyone could save themselves a lot of time and confusion if they only heeded Qimmik.

I don't know Qimmik that well, neither do I know anyone else on these forums. I am obliged to hear what everyone has to say, hence my question on this thread. Are you or Qimmik published to the point were I may make either of you the final authority on this?

If this is beneath you, feel free to post in another topic, Michael. Your comment is demeaning and not very helpful.

I apologize. I don't consider this beneath me (or I wouldn't have posted), and I didn't mean my post to be demeaning, though I can see how it came over that way. But I do think that Qimmik's first post adequately answered the questions. As a well credentialed Greek scholar myself (you'll have to take my word for it), but one with infinitely less patience than Qimmik, I can assure you that Qimmik generally nails it. (He may not be up to speed on the Byz. text controversy, but that scarcely matters for this.) That was the main point of my post. I only post on these boards to be helpful, and if you didn't find my post helpful I'm sorry.